Why do Chinese officials commit suicide rather than go to trial?

(From Netease) September 21, another high ranking Chinese government official died abnormally. Zhejiang Higher People’s Court Vice President Tong Zhaohong was found dead in his office bathroom. Tong Zhaohong committed suicide by drowning himself. According to reports, Tong ZhaoHong had been depressed for months prior to his death. A short suicide note was also found on his office desk.

President Qi:

I have been depressed for several months, it is unbearable, extremely uncomfortable and I lost faith. In particular, I cannot work, sorry for the chaos, and thank you for your concerns.

My wife and my son are very very good people, my actions brought them misfortunes, I hope you can help them under the possible circumstances.

I lied to my wife that I went outside for a walk, I want to work, I really want to go to the office to work.

Hope everyone takes care and good health!

This is the abnormal death #9 of a Chinese official since this year. Prior to this 8 other high ranking officials died abnormally and most of them committed suicide…

After abnormal deaths of China’s officials, the aftermath is already a common practice which has been implemented for over ten years in this country already.

1. All media report it as depression, because this reason is easier to be accepted by all parties. Even the deceased would like everyone to think that.

2. The people would always interpret the case as corruption; no need for other explanation, the subtext is even more believable than the official reports. The fact is no one believes the official public reports anymore.

3. Each incident will further stir up more public hatred towards the officials and will cause greater disappointment, at the same time it will increase bigger appétit for people to hope more officials commit suicide or get arrested.

4. “Truth seekers” or the public opinion all think that it is a way for the dead to protect the interests of their families, as a way to sacrifice oneself for the safety of the others, even for other corrupt officials.

5. The deceased and the family, whether there is the good story about them, the tragic story, maybe they were framed… no one would care anymore. (“一死否百善”) When someone is dead, this person is totally bad, completely useless and (“自绝于人民”) “alienated oneself from the people”. This was a Cultural Revolution style of conclusion, which we now fully inherited. To choose this kind of death is to deny one’s entire life.

6. This kind of death, in China usually puts an end to all reasons for investigation; the truth is often forever lost in the black hole of the history.

7. A large number of this kind of incidents happen, which made politicians even colder and more selfish. They knew politics is cruel and realistic. The power you are having but not using will eventually expire; “the tea will be cold as soon as the person leaves”. So-called political reputation which accumulates over the years is totally worthless. Thus, the officials are increasingly more materialistic, care more about immediate benefit, more about the fast track to move up and more about the short-term. “After I am gone, who cares about your hurricanes and floods?”

8. Under the anti-corruption mode, all officials are scared to death. They do not dare to take on responsibilities by themselves, do not dare to offend others for their business or carrying out justice. Because the person who does the most, who fearlessly goes forward is the one that does not cover one’s behind. There will be more loopholes, more frictions and more political opponents. They are more likely to be reported. When there are enough reports and if he gets “double regulated” (双规 Shuanggui: ordered to give a clear explanation of one’s issues; give a confession by certain time and at designated place.) by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, then it is all over for this person. It will be pointless to go to trial in court, and meaningless for defense lawyers to argue. There has not been anyone that come out with a clean reputation. Rather, useless officials who just stand there and do nothing or who always have a smiley face and are nice to everyone are the safer choice. Therefore, officials fear the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection to death, one phone call from the Commission makes them to flee the country or even committing suicide. Normally the political circle looks at peace, the fake hellos, ‘how are you doings’ and everyone is good, under the premise of their own safety, making some extra money on the side and then the “safe landing”. The country is at stake, the people are suffering, they will never care. There are more and more incompetent officials, fewer and fewer officials who have courage, it’s like the entire county has Parkinson’s disease. Now the Chinese officialdom is already deeply ill.

9. With special rights, the anti-corruption legal system just fails. Officials believe, including the Prosecutorial office also believes the present criminal proceedings cannot solve cases. The only way is by the Commission for Discipline Inspection which is not restricted by Criminal Law. All the officials who are directed to proceed in this manner never believe the current proceeding of the law, the verdict of the court and the role of the lawyers. I have more than once heard the anti-corruption high ranking officials say, “now days, any officials in at the county level, if I could review them for 5 days and 5 nights and investigate for ten days, no one is innocent enough for for not deserving a sentence.” They believe internal reporting and internal instructions.

A person like these, when he is cracked down, when he is “double regulated”, he knows that even there is injustice in his case, the court will not find out the truth or clarify the facts for him. Hiring lawyers is just for show, much of the money wasted. Like Liu Fangren said, “I am a party member, how can I hire a lawyer to go against the party? The Party can do whatever to me.” As a provincial party secretary, he has no idea about the modern legal system concept; he does not know the important role of the defense lawyers. Even they know there is injustice, they rather accept it and hope to get a lighter sentence. If you hired a lawyer, it could mean that you have an bad attitude and receive a harsher sentence. Many prosecutors and discipline inspection commission staff “educate” the accused just like that. NPC Vice Chairman Cheng Kejie, Guizhou provincial party secretary Liu Fnren and Anhui Provincial deputy secretary Wang Zhaoyao, all see the court and the lawyers that way. Therefore after they were accused, they did not want to find a lawyer at all because they knew that the trial court in China is completely fake, hiring a lawyer is only a process, which is useless because the decision long had been discussed and formed. Because when they were in power, that’s how they did it. They never take the law seriously. If the courts do not follow their instructions, then those presidents of the courts all don’t want their jobs anymore. They totally do not believe China’s legal system.

Under such circumstances, the higher the position is the more this person understands about the insights of China’s judicial system. The expectation of a fair trial is zero, so they will choose to commit suicide to end it all, to avoid torture and humiliation during the investigation, to avoid harm to their families, relatives and friends (Commission for Discipline Inspection finds 100% witnesses on the bribery cases, anyone that has any finical relationship with the defendant will not escape). They can also wrap up the stolen money that way, and protecting their corrupted colleagues and bosses. They could be thanked for doing that, so after they leave their families will have a relatively better living environment.

10. Therefore, “problem officials” in China, as long they have a little courage in them would choose to commit suicide rather than accept an open trial. Because our trials are too fake, there is no fairness and justice. When power is held in others’ hands, everything is decided internally. It is not that China’s courts and judges are deaf or blind, that they cannot find the truth or detecting injustice, it is in the reality of China’s huge amount of corruptions ,the judges themselves have dirt on them, “more than the braids of a Uygur girl”, they cannot stand a investigation themselves. They are kidnapped by the anti-corruption, they do not dare to offend the Commission for Discipline Inspection and the prosecutors. They do not dare to stand by justice, to decide the cases base on facts and evidence. They only have to accommodate the requirements of these institutions. Find the defendant guilty even if it is injustice, to sacrifice the justice in the case, on the expense of the rest of the life of the accused, in order to maintain the prestige of the authority figures and the “national institutions”.

This is why the court will never give a “not guilty” verdict even when there is obvious injustice; this is why China’s courts wear the same pants as the Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Procurator Office and together deal with the lawyers and the defendants; this is why China’s lawyers continue to be suppressed and decrease in value; this is why the lawyers in China who really are not afraid to fight never end up well; this is why many incompetent, “corporative” lawyers… fit right in and get praised; this is the reason why a lot of injustice continuously to happen in China.

If the court or the judge does not follow the orders of Commission for Discipline Inspection, they can just easily find a report received earlier to go arrest the judge. And they often get it right. Under this anti-corruption model, there cannot truly be a independent trial. “The separation of the three powers” is only a theory, if the “anti-corruption of power” does not change in China, if China does not implement “anti-legal corruption”, even with the separation of the three powers, the courts are too soft “like the mud that can never be made into the wall”.

11. Sadly, this is a phenomena of “chasing one’s own tail”. The powerful figures who always insisted the “effective anti-corruption model” then become the victims of this model itself. There are already number of officials in the Commission for Discipline Inspection itself fall to victims of this model. I already defended a lot of them. And others chose to commit suicide. Because they were so clear the court is so fake. Once their power is gone, they are for sure to go behind bars, they would choose to end themselves rather than going to court for trial.

Based on this, after they “had the problems”, in order to avoid jail time, they will utilize all the their power to protect themselves. They will will seek the umbrella of the power for protection, they will use money to pull their greedy peers into the water, they will form a mutual protection group, will use more money to buy more stability through officials at higher levels and power.

Until all of that is done, in fact his corruption is completed. Originally aspired to be a good civil servants, at this point are real useless officials, corrupt officials, parasites that only care about themselves.

Once we understand these things that are in fact common in the officialdom, particularly every judicial official knows the unspoken rules, we know that the Commission for Discipline Inspection’s, "Criminal Procedure Law" and the mode of anti-corruption has to come to an end. It is a model which the more “anti” the more corrupt it gets, and it also will bring down the Communist Party cadres.

After we said this, it is also good for leaders in the Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Procurator Office because under the big fishing net of "anti-corruption authority", no one can escape from it.

Discipline officials, Procurators are equally difficult to escape. There had been cases of Attorney General and the head of anti-corruption committing suicides. Because, according to political principles, a power without increasing prevalence of the power constraints, a power that is closed from the public supervision is the most likely to become the breeding ground for corruption. Having the great power of investigation and discipline is most prone to abuse such power. Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Procuratorate do not have less corruption than the courts, it’s just they have the rights to check others, but others do not have the rights to check them.

The only way is for china to return to the “anti legal corruption” model, strictly enforce the "Code of Criminal Procedure"; give real independent prosecutorial role; adhere to the public judicial procedures; adhere to the people electing officials; adhere to the citizens’ oversight of public authority; adhere to the trial court functioning independently; adhere to listening to rational analysis and defense lawyers. Then China’s judicial system may return to be reasonable, in order to really protect the country’s long-term stability. All of these require substantive political reform, so that it will be safe to be the government officials in China. So that these phenomenon: officials fleeing the country, officials committing suicide, people hating officials and officials threatening other officials and so on will really change.

Could be a unwritten ‘cost saving feature’ that saves time and tax payer money. Just do yourself and save everyone the effort. Unlike the West where trials carry on forever and media wastes time of the people watching media. Drab and efficient or colourful but wasteful. Who’s ahead these days . . .

And mainland Chinese people don’t understand why the people in Hong Kong were upset when the British rule ended and why Taiwan wants to be considered its own country. Everyone who lives in better systems doesn’t want communist party thugs in charge for all the reasons described in this article.

Most people from Hong Kong are proud to be Chinese. Some mentally retarded young dipshits call themselves Hongkongnese (which we know is a joke). However, given the choice to be Britain’s little bitch or return to whence they belong, I think the choice is obvious. Even if it is perceived to be the lesser of two evils.

You democratic losers can go back to your U S of A, to the lovely depression you guys are having, the incompetent leaders you voted for, or the puppet regime of media control by rich Jews or the wars you insisted/voted to participate in. And you call the communist system thuggish. Pathetic.

It’s just common sense and/or fact … Most if not all US media is controlled by Jews. I’m not discriminating against religion, it just so happens the Jewish people in America control most of the wealth and power. It’s a complement to their success if anything.

Hey National Treasure, don’t start looking desperate. The more insults you post in multiple threads to attract my attention, the more chance that I’ll notice you right? I’ll check out what other comments of possible significance you’ve posted. This comment is just a rip off of your mom jokes.

Hong Kong was a desolate little backwater before the British arrived and made it what you see today.

People from Hong Kong took one look over the border towards the unwashed, hungry masses poised at the gates to their city and made the ‘obvious’ decision – thousands left Hong Kong and instead preferred to join the ‘little bitches’ (NZ and Australia, etc). The only people excited about the handover were the wealthy property developers waiting for the flood gates to open. No one else was really prepared to return to the desolate backwater from whence they came. That much is obvious to anyone with eyes.

Your system is thuggish, the government runs roughshod over the rights of its citizens (oh wait, I’m confused, you don’t have any rights), dismantles their homes and beats them for seemingly innocuous reasons. The rich can kill freely with their cars, cats and dogs are skinned while alive, the death penalty is expedited to facilitate the sale of human organs, should I continue? I’m getting a little tired.

Why do you visit this site if you don’t even read the articles? You’re must just be a gifted cadre assigned to the ChinaHush unit trying vainly to persuade people freedom is overrated. Glad you enjoyed your time at your foreign university, really looks like it paid off…

Assumptions, assumptions.. That’s what I like about you pretentious smart asses trying to work out exactly what my background is. Like it’s some mystery why I’m infinitely more articulate and capable than you idiots posting unilaterally unflattering projections of your intellect in your racist rants.

First of all, colonization was hardly peaceful and obviously unwanted. Even an idiot could fathom this, are you saying you can’t?

It’s like saying that Iraq, Burma, would appreciate making the ‘obvious’ decision getting owned by Britain. It was an occupation that left most Chinese in a position where they had no choice but to concede. It was brutal and oppressive.

The Chinese system is thuggish? Not really, socialism promotes human rights and equality. It’s the inability to enforce that system efficiently that creates problems. Isn’t that the same with all governments? I’d sure as hell rather my house gets dismantled than going to war in Iraq. I’d rather murderers die and get their organs sold than pay for their jail time. I’d rather have competent leaders than vote every two years for idiots that are merely puppets for the rich. You say democracy is better but where is the proof? Look at the shit that has happened in democratic countries throughout the centuries. Should I continue? Because I’m getting tired too.

In your words: why do you visit this site if you don’t read the articles. You must be some smartass with too much time on your hands, vainly trying to defend the glory of your nation. Despite being in a recession, wars, and god knows what’s coming up. Oh yeah… and while you’re making presumptions, you can also presume that I’m Chinese guy coming over to LA to buy a few more of your houses. It’s called stimulating your economy. Giving you hopeless jackasses a chance to get back on your feet. Now where would backwater US be without China? 😀 Joking! ~~

I had to reply to this and I totally agree with VOC…talking about human rights! man many idiots didn’t have an idea what paths their ancestors had taken to get them to their current comfort zone now so that they can step afar from a distance and criticise the rest of the world with a jaundiced view…those who has brains larger than a pea or did know anything about their own longwalk to justice and rights mostly keep their mouth shut…if history is one of their school subjects maybe just go back for a revisit, on some of the dirty chapters out there ( oh wait, i’m confused, those chapters might not exist at all…hun ) should i continue, getting a bit sick and tired.

It takes a sad person not to denounce the British treatment of Chinese in the 1800’s, how they had your whole nation by the balls is truly sick and I hope it is never repeated.

But from another perspective, there were 1500 people in the little bay where the Brits stole a concession – at the time of handover it was close to 7 million. Now, either HK was a nice place to live under the British, or HK people fuck like rabbits.

sounds a bit like if someone now offers you a better “concession” you’d grab it immediately without any second thought? i wouldn’t…sure, the 1800s was a painful memory for all chinese, lives decimated and lesson learnt, but I’m glad to be part of a nation with enough backbones to stand and fight until the last minute with scarce means…many cultures and races went lost in time for known or unknown reasons and i guess thats partially their destiny, but we were and are here to stay, and to get stronger and stronger as time goes which is a destiny as well a bit too obvious now and perhaps a bit threatening for some constantly agitated…but lucky China is a nation much more introverted and less hostile than many counterparts out there, we normally don’t need to live on scraping others’ old wounds unless provoked to stay secure…

sound also like a pathetic aboriginine accidently picked up n brought up by a merciful coloniser and later to turn against at own mother for being temporarily inferior when s/he was seizured. Fortunately that didn’t happen to all the aborignals around the world for the past and now or future they know at least to fight for their own identity to last, and mind u, taking away all the pretexts and ulterior motives what do they care? British didn’t pick HK out of humalitarianism or kind conscience whatsoever if not the military significance of the “little bay”. And if you don’t know what exactly happened behind all the drama during the 1997 AFC why HK could sustain the impact while a similiar developed Singapore’s had yrs of progress and development wiped out all out of a sudden, I don’t see it worthwhile to come back for this…thats the difference between your biological mom and foster carer, thats what your mum would do when you are in grave danger while your foster carer can’t be bothered…and all chinese in HK knows where their heart but they probably thought you knew as well…

just search ‘Rupert Murdoch Jewish’ and you’ll be given a nice listing of at least 40 sites linking him to 9/11 and of course his Jewish heritage.

The communist party changes leaders in cycles. Hu’s successor will probably be Xi Jinping. As I said, I’d rather competent leaders that I don’t select than to choose between idiots. Most people don’t like voting anyway as most political factions are very similar in ideology. Furthermore, the constitution and legal system is far more important than the political system when it comes to freedom.

By most means, the constitution of most democratic countries give an abundance of power to the Federal government, which can be used to violate fundamental human rights in a number of situations. Nothing short of what the communist party can do expressly but hey, at least we don’t hide in veils of fabrication.

I’m invoking Goodwin’s Law here and I have to point out that you are pretty darn close to being complete idiot Voice. If you want to be taken even remotely serious then the VERY LEAST you could do was not to refer to nutjob conspiracy websites. Anyway, we all know Murdoch is a fxcktard even without taking the tinfoilers’ crackpot ideas into consideration.

oh VOC why am i always agree with u…but i don’t think we need to use foul words to those innocent less-educated individuals from god knows where…can i just say, many of them don’t really have the intellect or chance or opportunity to understand some fundamental issues in the human world with a certain depth, we have to admit the power of their media and how general public’s view can be distorted to such a degree… probably they know things like “organ harvesting” just from those paid FaLunKongs in their country with shocking pictures, but how can they see what those advocates really after at the end of the day, there’s no way they can see that right? and i say China has a better legal system than many other countries out there where you can smuggle illicit drugs ( which also kills people, including their organs ) without fear, you can be a serial raper or killer without fear ( which directly kills people, including their organs ), you can do whatever appauling stuff to anyone you find unpleasant without any fear, coz there’s nothing like a death penalty based on the perceptions that everyone’s born equal that no lives are to be destroyed… i say save their energy on china issues and go back voicing out their rights to fight for a better system which makes more basic sense..

I didn’t realize I sound so like VoC until I finish reading this long page…LOL, maybe I’m a alpha female? just kidding lol….But seriously I just can’t help agreeing ’cause I saw some truth there, and I think indeed, if chinese officials possess a fraction of the eloquence of VoC and mastery of Eng language the rest of the world would know better about China instead of arguments all over the place at times based on -ve comments extracted from a few chinese they’ve met ( just too common n often it happens )…An extraordinary phenomenon is that if a chinese goes aboard to a “more developed civilised ” country, after a few years they become even more patriotic with all the “bad truth”, non-censored freedom finally exposed to them…did anyone think about why? definately its not the food…lol anyway, debate is always good as long as not too savage…

I’m about to generalize like crazy here (with regard to Chinese nationals becoming more patriotic over their time spent abroad), and I can already feel the heated responses; BUT, I would like to respond to this statement from G:

>>An extraordinary phenomenon is that if a chinese goes aboard to a “more developed civilised ” country, after a few years they become even more patriotic with all the “bad truth”, non-censored freedom finally exposed to them…did anyone think about why? definately its not the food…lol anyway, debate is always good as long as not too savage…

This is because, from my experience, they do not interact with any members of the host culture (can’t adequately communicate to the level they are used to with Chinese?). They instead bond with other mainlanders in the same situation and form their own clique’s that reinforce each others sense of superiority based on shared experience – human nature that is not unique to mainlanders.

I know this one kid at an “international house” at a big state university who would not speak, or even acknowledge the existence of a fellow Japanese roommate. I mean, this is the kind of student China sends to the states? How does a foreign experience even have a chance to reform someone like this.

Instead, students become bitter, insulated and protective of the sensibilities that had been cultivated at home prior to leaving. If you were hoping for a more open minded, more western oriented returnee, you’re in for a rude awakening. I alluded to this in my original comment.

Also, please don’t feel that I am just picking on Chinese. At that international house (like an apartment complex for foreign students) I saw the same behaviour from Koreans, Taiwanese, even Trinidadians and especially Italians.

He’s a Socialist and says Socialism promotes human rights while he diminishes the evilness of sixty years of State sanctioned cruelty and oppression along with the enforcement of economic policies leading to the extreme hardship and starvation for tens of millions of Chinese to mere “inefficiencies in the Chinese system”, disapproves of citizens’ right to vote for their representatives, is a believer in a global Jewish conspiracy and a 9/11 troofer, and calls people pretentious while posting under the handle “Voice of China”.

He’s a kook on stilts or an uber kook and would be a fairly powerful statement against Socialism but for the fact that he’s also a nobody. He ought to have a spot on U.S. TV as a scarecrow for the “Tea Party” crowd to brandish about.

The theory of socialism promotes state ownership and optimal allocation to ensure that wealth is equally distributed in society. Whether it occurs in practice depends on many issues. In the case of China, there are deficiencies. There have been wrong decisions leading to extreme hardship but these are mistakes that are independent of the type of political system that exist. The right to vote for representatives is highly overrated as most political factions are fairly similar (without delving into conspiracy theory at all).

I never mentioned anything about a global Jewish conspiracy. I happened to mention that Jewish people do control state media. They happen to have seats in the most powerful arms of government, banking and media. These are facts which are quite flattering. The fact that there is a conspiracy theory that is about using media and politics to control world events is not news. The fact that those in control are Jews is merely incidental, and I am in no way presenting any opinion about zionism. 9/11 is most likely a government exercised incident as is the ‘war on terror’. Don’t tell me you’re stupid enough to beleive it.

I respect people who are pretentious if they can back it up. Too bad most idiots such as yourself can’t. The Voice of China is synonymous with unity in the Voice of China. It’s not meant to be pretentious.

I don’t know what a kook is, neither do I know about what a ‘tea party crowd is’. Point is, I don’t care. Try to stick to rebutting facts rather than presenting unsupported cliches which are easily refutable. Lesson finished.

I think a kook is someone who thinks he he can surf, but actually sucks.
A tea party crowd is probably a random crowd of conservative bigots.

Excuse the interruption. I’m not daring you for any comical roast or personal insult, but since you present yourself as a teacher: I would like to know why the abcense of democracy should be regarded as an incentive for competent leadership or a premise for fair politics. Where is the proof of that? In my view the inability to enforce a policy is an indication of a crucial defect in a political system. Or would you rather define the rampant corruption in China as a temporary deficiency?

I’m not a teacher but to some uninformed losers on this site, I might as well be, given their lack of knowledge. Although I do this incidentally and not purposefully.

You aren’t daring for a comical roast or a personal insult. However you do lay a fairly intricate trap in the form of a strawman argument. Which I guess is a step above most of the trolls on this site. Albeit, I understand you may not have done it intentionally. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

It’d be silly to directly answer such a question. Debate about politics is something I tend to avoid because as I said before, there is a saying that: ‘everyone is an expert when it comes to football and politics’. Discussing politics often leads to nothing but idealists with no knowledge and infinite ideas talking out of their ass.

I am willing to work around the strawman and give my interpretation of your question but answering in a different way. First of all, there is no incentive for other political systems to provide incentive for fair politics. All political systems are prone to inefficiencies, deficiencies, and corruption. Having one party control most of the wealth in the country is considered overpowering by most. But only under the illusion that democratic countries actually have choice in how their country is run.

In reality, not in theory, there is no such thing as free choice in any political system. The constitution and laws of most countries provide for the rights for things like referendums, the exercise of express federal powers, the ability for the Federal government to override state jurisdiction and exercise limitless power where there is a breach in national security. Most people are either sheep, stupid, uneducated and uniformed about this kind of information. This is why some people are often as stupid, despite having a tertiary degree. If the top 20% of the state is stupid, what about the remaining 80%?

Given my academic and professional success, I feel entitled to say that I am smarter than 99% of the people who post here. I have always been within the top 2% of state in my academic life as a student and without disclosing more, I am now a highly paid professional in a promising field of work. I feel entitled to make mockery of people’s English and lack of knowledge in general and in specialized issues.

It goes without saying that inability enforce policy is an indication of a crucial defect. Corruption however is not an aspect of political decision making. It is of lack of internal control which empowers those in power to abuse their rights and break the law. Is this a deficiency? Yes, but not in the political system but of the method of internal control, which needs to be addressed. Arguably, this entwined with the political party, but the issue is not with the political system itself. I’m sure methods have been put in place to stop this, but if you don’t have your head in your ass and pay attention to reality, you’d realize that corruption is rampant in all areas of law in almost all countries, despite very stringent internal control, the greatest example being the police force. The fact is, the political parties in America are just as corrupt as their Chinese counterparts. The fact that their media has close links to government makes concealing any deficiency, a phone call away.

Is China perfect? No, but as I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I’d rather have a competent leader that I didn’t vote for then two consecutive idiots as my president that lead to depressions and crisis’. I’d rather not go to war on terror either. If democracy worked, why not end all wars now? Conclusion: Democracy doesn’t work – most people are too stupid to know what they want.

“Corruption however is not an aspect of political decision making. It is of lack of internal control which empowers those in power to abuse their rights and break the law.”

The fact is that internal controls do not work, only external monitoring and an independent justice system can work, as explained in the original article.

Now you immaturely believe that pro-democracy people are under the impression that democracies are a perfect implementation of that approach. We are not, but like Churchill said, democracy is a terrible form of government but we have not find a better one so far. In other words all governments have some level of corruption and abuse so the comparison is a matter of grades. And objectively northern europe democracies are much better than China (or the US for that matter) in terms of transparency, balance of power, independent justice, human rights and reduced corruption.

And unlike you, we are not innocent enough to trust our politicians much, and i was going to say not stupid enough to admire them (“ho ho Grand Pa Wen is so good to the people! we should be grateful to him”) and not generous enough to forgive them (“Chairman Mao rules was 70% positive”… by the way why not a single Chinese gave me a different number like 65% or 75%?)

And when evaluating your government, let’s not get in a state of beatitude at the view of the ho-so-modern shanghai skyscrapers and ho-so many new cars on the freeway, and let’s look back at the self-inflicted damages done over the last 60 years.

I will skip over the Tibet 1950 massacres (and yes i am not innocent enough to believe the feodal theocracy in place before was a bliss) as i am not sure it falls in the ‘self-inflicted damages’ bucket as far as Hans are concerned.

The two prime examples are of course the great leap forward (20 to 40 million deaths by hunger) and the cultural revolution (10 to 30 million deaths, not to mention a generation’s education wasted which probably delayed the country technological and industrial progress by 20 years). And by the way, as an irrelevant side comment on the cultural revolution, Chinese should be grateful to the evil western powers who took (by force or by money) so many cultural artifacts out of their country before the hordes of red guards got a chance to smash them.

But i would also add the Sichuan earthquake and its schools-collapse-first as a good example of poor government performance. And please spare me the ‘it is not the central government but the provincial ones who are doing all the bad things’.

To return the favor, I will spare you the embarrassment of having to try and deny the event itself, by not going into details of the good story of the tanks vs students. Ho yes, social stability is more important, and ho yes, it was a long long time ago, 21 years.

So speaking of more recent times, why not take note of the ecological cataclysm which is turning China into a desertic wasteland?

When the wolves are in charge (and they always are in every country), the populace’d better not behave as sheep.

But hey that’s exactly what a recent chinese bestseller book is saying so there is some hope for the chinese people, which is a great people with a great history but a wrong government.

Not bad of an assessment. I’m impressed, as this is probably the most intelligible comment on Chinahush. Don’t take this as too much of praise however, it merely means you’re more articulate than the common troll.

1. Your opinion that internal control does not work.

I think for one, you fail to understand the meaning of ‘internal control’ in a technical sense. I am not talking about internal control as in ‘inside government’ control which you seem to be comprehending it as. The technical use of the word involves external monitoring. The whole purpose is to have independent checks against each other to ensure that there can be no ‘inside manipulation’ of whatever the subject matter may be.

As for an independent justice system, you are too vague. Are you advocating the need of an independent judiciary? Or a separation of powers? If so, how many branches of decision making? Two or three? Should there be any overlap between the executive and legislative branch? Should the judiciary have veto powers? It has been a while since I remember reading about the separation of powers but as I recall from memory, the interconnection of the three branches in the United States or Common Law countries are fairly inefficient. The actual separation is merely theoretical and in practice does not work as the judiciary often is given excessive power to influence the executive and legislative arm and in turn can control the entire system by selection of its members.

Now, I won’t bore you with more of this unnecessary legal theory that you probably didn’t have in mind when you wrote this comment. All you probably knew was that China has excessive control and influence over the judiciary. But mind you, the judiciary has nothing to do with the ‘corruption’ issue that we are talking about. It also does not facilitate a dysfunctional political system and it does not affect internal control. So yes, you talk too much about what you don’t know. A common mistake of the 95% of the population who read the news and take it as gospel.

like Churchill said, democracy is a terrible form of government but we have not find a better one so far. In other words all governments have some level of corruption and abuse so the comparison is a matter of grades. And objectively northern europe democracies are much better than China (or the US for that matter) in terms of transparency, balance of power, independent justice, human rights and reduced corruption.

2. Churchill was a good politician and a reputable speaker. Too bad he isn’t authority on the comparison of governments. Furthermore your “OPINION” that European democracies are better than China, etc is merely that: Opinion. I won’t discuss further as it is unnecessary and a waste of time.

And unlike you, we are not innocent enough to trust our politicians much, and i was going to say not stupid enough to admire them (“ho ho Grand Pa Wen is so good to the people! we should be grateful to him”) and not generous enough to forgive them

3. The purpose of history is to interpret past events and to predict future events. Forgiveness is never an element to the examination. What you are referring to for example, is the analysis of Mao’s reforms and his failures. As a defense to the often cited criticisms of his failed reforms, we find the need to defend our national hero, such is the nationalism you get under a socialist system where the state looks after the people and the people support the state (which of course you’ll disagree, and bring up examples where it hasn’t been the case, but I won’t bother arguing as it is off topic). Indeed there have been mistakes, but this is where you go back to the saying ‘you win some you lose some, and most of the time Mao was right’.

(“Chairman Mao rules was 70% positive”… by the way why not a single Chinese gave me a different number like 65% or 75%?)

I like the hint of mockery at the end but that’s all it is unfortunately. Why 70%, why not 71%? Because it isn’t meant to be an exact number. Why do you think you are 99% correct and not 100? Why not 88%? For the same reason. It probably means that Mao was right 7 times out of 10; he did more good than bad,etc.

So speaking of more recent times, why not take note of the ecological cataclysm which is turning China into a desertic wasteland?

4. That does suck; but to be honest, I haven’t been following the causation to those events. But what does this have to do with the political system again? I suppose, failure to implement water restrictions or something? But there are so many more factors to it, so what are you trying to prove with this example?

5. Your recital of political events is impressive. Some of the analysis not so good. Let’s see? Chinese should be grateful that Western Powers extorted by force artifacts only to sell them back? Well, that’s more like a slap in the face.

Again you impress me in your knowledge of some minor details. For example: would they have been destroyed anyway? Possibly, probably, I don’t know. Does that justify what was done? No. Does it work out in the end? It’s impossible to know. Would you rather that you smashed your 40 inch TV on an argument with your girlfriend, only to regret it later? Or would you rather your girlfriend took your TV and tried to sell it to you at 50% of the cost? Hey, you gain in the second scenario but we both know that it may not be the more satisfactory solution.

6. You seem to focus your comment away from what was originally discussed by me previously. I would call it an elaborate stawman. You focus the attention of self inflicted damages caused by the Chinese government which you know could not be rebutted. Which is true. Yet you seem to attribute that a few bad decisions can be attributed to a failed political system – which is incorrect. You use Churchill as the sole authority that Democracy is the closest to a perfect government and then conclude by a soft/hard statement trying to prove you aren’t bias by praising a ‘great history’ and a ‘wrong government.’ Not bad for a troll on Chinahush, I applaud your time and dedication in writing this comment. The problem is that you failed to add much substance to this aside from pointing out mistakes that the PRC has made, while praising democracy and failing to point out the same mistakes that the democratic countries have made. It’s a unilateral argument which is well written but to the discerned eye, is really quite weak. One or two paragraphs about sky scrapers, Tibet and natural disasters really didn’t fit. But again, thanks for writing the first close to decent comment on Chinahush. Keep it up.

> Don’t take this as too much of praise however, it merely means you’re more articulate than the common troll.

Clearly. Given where it comes from, i obviously would not dare to read too much into it. I gather english is not your first language which put us on equal grounds in that linguistico-rethorical matter.

> As for an independent justice system, you are too vague.(…)

I know: i just did not want to ramble too much and assumed you were capable of filling the blanks. Let me ask you: who is hiring and firing judges in a chinese provincial or municipal court?

> the judiciary has nothing to do with the ‘corruption’ issue
> that we are talking about

To continue my example, don’t you think judges appointment has any relevance to the dealing of the city officials with the real estate developpers for instance, or the complaints of the poor people who lose their land without decent compensation?

> your “OPINION” that European democracies are better
> than China, etc is merely that

I was waiting that rhetoric argument and you did not disappoint me on that one either.

Well first for the sake of precision, i was not exhibiting Italy as an example and instead i was talking about ‘northern europe’ as in ‘nordic countries’: so, not to be condescendant, but i had in mind Denmark, Sweeden and Norway and may be Finland.

As for why it is slightly more than an opinion, search ‘corruption index’ on google (huh, you have access to it, right? if not try baidu. I am lucky enough to have access to both). I know that’s just some numbers and that can be manipulated by the evil western governments.

But several of these rankings reach similar results. And the US (the biggest spin doctor democracy) and UK (2nd) are not at the top of the list, mind you. The nordic countries i gave you are generally in the top 10, the US around 20th and China around 80th.

> I like the hint of mockery at the end. Why 70%, why not 71%?

At first i appreciated the comment, but reading further on i am not sure you captured what i was trying to hint. Let me take off the glove: why not a single Chinese think that may be it is 20% or 100%? why such an uniformity of views? Completely irrelevant to the original topic, but still a noticeable anomaly, symptomatic of the limited freedom of expression and press in China (and yes i know it is improving and it is nowhere as bad as the 1960’s soviet union… just to save you the effort of shooting the standard answer).

Also as one more side comment, i think Chairman Mao should have step down in the 1950’s to score anywhere near 70%. So i am hard pressed to give more than 50%; but i don’t worry i understand that 0% is undefendable. I would be quite more generous with elevator Deng though. Yes totally irrelevant too.

> Chinese should be grateful that Western Powers extorted
> by force artifacts only to sell them back

Come on that was just a little nasty and undecent shot below the belt that i was not going to defend anyway. I am surprised you wasted your time answering that one and constructing this acrobatic parable about the TV and the girlfriend. Parable which is, you will have to agree, a little bit too close to pathetic, and i am generous. I guess my below-the-belt shot was reasonably well aimed after all.

> praising a ‘great history’ and a ‘wrong government.’

It was not a posture for the sake of lifting my post up. I actually know a little thing or two about chinese history and art (leaving aside contemporary chinese art, thank you very much) and that gives me the right to enunciate my true opinion about chinese culture regardless of my views on the current unelected government of China. Please.

> One or two paragraphs about sky scrapers, Tibet and
> natural disasters really didn’t fit.

The skyscraper beatitude is always amusing. But i was also discreetly preparing for the argument ‘look at the achievements’ because i probably mistakenly put you in the category of the little-emperors-grown-young-adult who do not realize the material achievements are not the proof of the adequacy of their government but simply the benefit of a) a readily exploitable cheap workforce b) a readily available body of technologies (see ‘joint ventures’) build over 200 years by the western countries (and don’t get me wrong it is good that everyone get the benefit of it).

As for Tibet, it was not relevant (didn’t i said ‘i will skip’) but it was just titillating play between ‘self-inflicted’ and the Han-Tibetan history which makes the word ‘self’ fairly ambivalent in that sensitive context.

But on the natural disaster (and i mean the real ones like Sichuan quake, and not the bad weather invoked after the failuresg of the great leap forward), the poor construction of recent schools in relation with the still standing government buildings is a sad example of the consequences of unchecked corruption. The rough handling of the parents who asked for explanations and justice is even sadder (and yes i know that was the work of a provincial official and not of the central government).

> The problem is that you failed to add much substance to
> this aside from pointing out mistakes that the PRC has made

That is right and that was the original intention because:

a) discussing corruption and an independant judicial system alone is also insufficient and sterile but tiresome. One has to open the whole pandora box from freedom of expression to elections.

b) Very honestly i think the Chinese (as in ‘chinese people’) should be the ones doing it, as in 1989 to take a random example. They should be the first ones questionning why Hu Jia is in jail and they should be the first ones to feel bad about it, at least as bad as i do feel about it.

> praising democracy

Didn’t i said it is a terrible form of government?

> failing to point out the same mistakes that the democratic
> countries have made

It is conceivable that i know them as well as you do. But the weakness of your counter argument is that today China has the benefit of hindsight with respect to these mistakes. I guess you could answer that it is also true of the US and that i have nothing to show for it, and i would give you a 1 cent credit for reading my mind. And to elevate the debate i would suggest you that China should be less obsessed with the US and that the Chinese should resolve their love-hate feelings toward the US.

I gather english is not your first language which put us on equal grounds in that linguistico-rethorical matter.

No, its my third language but I gather it’s better than yours. I’m guessing English is not your native language either?

I know: i just did not want to ramble too much and assumed you were capable of filling the blanks.

It was possible to state your message in the same words without rambling. But of course, like most trolls, you theorize based on general knowledge which is unflattering if the opposition is more familiar with the topic. Specificity was important to the question you posed.

Let me ask you: who is hiring and firing judges in a chinese provincial or municipal court?

Again, this shows your lack of specific knowledge of the legal system. The correct terminology would be who appoints the judges. The answer is it must be approved by members of the State Council amongst consideration by the existing judiciary. Judges are generally not fired unless they breach the code of conduct or rules pertaining to a legal officer of the court.

Why do you ask this question? Is there even a point? Are you trying to again ‘generally’ propose that the judiciary is not independent because it is appointed by the state? This is a foolish argument because the judiciary in the United States is also controlled by the arms of the State. The legislative and executive arms of government are all State apparatuses. So clearly, you can see how a comment based on insufficient knowledge of the field makes you look stupid. So no, I’m not able to fill in the blanks because you make a confusing argument that makes no literal sense. Read the previous comment if you want to know more about this.

To continue my example, don’t you think judges appointment has any relevance to the dealing of the city officials with the real estate developpers for instance, or the complaints of the poor people who lose their land without decent compensation?

1. Be more specific – I will forgive you for this second instance but in future, I wont respond to questions which are ‘general’ and ignore any principle of legal analysis or relevance for that matter.

2. I think what you are trying to say is that bribery of judges is a direct result of political insufficiency and consequently leads to unsatisfactory outcomes in disputes.

a.) Well no, this is a logical fallacy. It’s like someone with no knowledge in economics claiming that lower wage rates overseas constitutes the need for ‘protectionism.’ Sounds like common sense, but anyone with an economics background knows this to be clearly false.

b.) Each of these incidents are independent of each other.

i.) The judiciary interprets and applies the law. The failure for general cases of land valuation and inadequate compensation is related to the legislative arm of government. Which is separate from the judiciary. But you aren’t attacking the legislative branch of government.

I told you to be specific so you don’t look like a jackass.

ii.) The National People’s Congress like the legislature in the United States (used as an example for simplicity) is composed of law makers. The failure to amend acts to be more objective is a deficiency. But the same happens in all countries where legislation is not amended to reflect the current societal atmosphere. The legislature is not a political body.

c.) So really, stop making yourself look stupid. I’m not here to give you lectures on legal theory. Go troll elsewhere if you want to trash talk without substance.

I was waiting that rhetoric argument and you did not disappoint me on that one either.

Huh? Let me get this straight. You wrote a unsubstantiated comment looking for a rhetoric answer and now you try and mock me for it. I don’t get the irony.

As for why it is slightly more than an opinion…. Search ‘corruption index’ on google I know that’s just some numbers and that can be manipulated by the evil western governments

Are you serious? Are you asking me to search the Google index for corruption index for a clear set of objective statistics on which country is the most corrupt? And I thought citing wikipedia was bad. So, how did they measure this index? Using a ruler? Or did they interview all the government officials that left the country and ask them how much money they took.

My initial impression of you was ok. Now you just seem stupid.

still a noticeable anomaly, symptomatic of the limited freedom of expression and press in China

I hope you enjoyed using your linguistic jargon. Unfortunately, it didn’t really help the fallacy of your argument. So, consistency and uniformity is a sign of limited freedom of expression and press. Does that mean if 80% of Americans believed communism was bad or if 90% of the media used the same words ‘meaningful autonomy’ in every article of the dalai lama that this is symptomatic of limited freedom of expression and press in the United States.

Think before you write, you are making yourself look even more stupid.

I guess my below-the-belt shot was reasonably well aimed after all.

*Chuckles.. I’m glad you acknowledged your tendency to troll. Given the weakness of your other arguments, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were serious. This comment made a lot more sense than your knowledgeable rant about the legal system. Next time I read something as pathetic as this, I’ll be sure to treat is as another ‘below the belt shot’.

It was not a posture for the sake of lifting my post up. I actually know a little thing or two about chinese history and art

I’m sure you did do it as a literary technique to falsely objectify your opinion. I gave your delicate ego a nice praise for your knowledge of history. Too bad I couldn’t do the same for your interpretation or lack of interpretation skills.

Re Tibet and natural disasters

Not much to add but to say how irrelevant and pointless it was for me to read you explain why it was irrelevant. The so called little emperor syndrome applies mostly to Koreans.

That is right and that was the original intention because:

a) discussing corruption and an independant judicial system alone is also insufficient and sterile but tiresome. One has to open the whole pandora box from freedom of expression to elections.

I was going to point this out in the beginning but realized I had generously provided a more elaborate description instead. Put simply though, you’ve just acknowledged your original intention was to create a logical fallacy and a strawman as a substitute for redressing the original question. To be more specific, you are stating that the communist system is not a optimal model because of the mistakes that have been made under that system. This is misleading and incorrect; there is no causation to that statement.

Didn’t i said it is a terrible form of government?

On the contrary, you praised it as the best model government when contemplating the effects of corruption that exist regardless of the political system. Quote “We are yet to find a better one so far”. Another play on semantics like that used to conclude the last post? Or just another ‘shot below the belt’?

And to elevate the debate i would suggest you that China should be less obsessed with the US and that the Chinese should resolve their love-hate feelings toward the US.

Did you say debate? cute 🙂

No, this was not about obsession about the United States. Quite the contrary considering you initialized this weak argument on the basis of using democracy, as a base of comparison. I am merely showing you how your argument lacks merit.

The dumplings sound nice. Good to talk to someone with an iq higher than say 10 (Korean_guy).

“The theory of socialism promotes state ownership and optimal allocation to ensure that wealth is equally distributed in society.”

This is indeed how a Socialist sees Socialism. It’s Heaven for Marxists and, like the Christian version, is fantastical as it is alien. The horror of it becomes apparent after the theory of Socialism is translated into state policy. The individual loses a great deal of freedom to direct his or her own life. He becomes a beggar competing for state handouts as the rewards he once received for his labour are no longer his to control. That prerogative and the prerogatives of private ownership in general are usurped by the state.

Instead of developing and promoting their skills to get more pay, individuals now brandish their needs to get more rations. That, or be chosen to become part of the state machinery itself and enjoy the perks and privileges to the benefit of themselves, their family and friends, and the ever increasing number of poor saps who have little choice but to suck up to their overlords to get themselves out of the poverty trap even if it entails getting their neighbours into one. The political class profits all the while demonizing the profit motive. It demonizes selfishness all the while its state officials run their constituencies like a fiefdom, living like lords and treating their constituents like serfs. This is equality under Socialism in practice.

As for goodwill between men, whatever amount of it existed prior to the rapacious and predatory Socialist state, is suffocated under a blanket of state mandated sacrifice and duty.

“Whether it occurs in practice depends on many issues. In the case of China, there are deficiencies. There have been wrong decisions leading to extreme hardship but these are mistakes that are independent of the type of political system that exist.”

No, you poor dumb animal. It is precisely because of the political system that these “mistakes” most often occur and when they do occur, result in the most widespread hardship. Hand over the unimaginably intricate network of interdependent relationships that make up a functioning economy and its price system to ivory tower socialist pencil-dicks and they will with their sledge hammer economics f*ck life up for millions of people.

“The right to vote for representatives is highly overrated as most political factions are fairly similar (without delving into conspiracy theory at all.)”

Irrelevant. In an open society the incentive for representatives to refrain from harming their constituents is that those same constituents can send their representatives packing following election day. The political factions may or may not be similar in an open society, but the serfs under a socialist dictatorship see only a thuggish Communism behemoth they are powerless to change and the destructive effects of which they, for the most part, are powerless to escape.

“I never mentioned anything about a global Jewish conspiracy. I happened to mention that Jewish people do control state media. They happen to have seats in the most powerful arms of government, banking and media. These are facts which are quite flattering. The fact that there is a conspiracy theory that is about using media and politics to control world events is not news.”

“Flattering”… See, this is why people like you are such a godsend to those who fight for individual liberty and limited, fiscally responsible government. Irrespective of what merit there is to the belief that Jews control the state(??) media, the government, and banking institutions, it’s the proverbial tingle-up-the-leg you get thinking about it that helps expose the nature of Socialism in all its power-lusting madness. Thanks for that.

“I respect people who are pretentious if they can back it up. Too bad most idiots such as yourself can’t. The Voice of China is synonymous with unity in the Voice of China. It’s not meant to be pretentious”

There is no unity of voice in China and you’re a pretentious pip-squeak even to suppose yours could ever be a fair representation of it should, by some astounding coincidence, 1.3 billion people find themselves agreeing with a particular political philosophy.

Hmmm.. Seems like you’re not as bright as the previous commentator. Which means you are of less than average intelligence. Try and read between the lines if you don’t understand. I’ll try and make this response verbose as I can’t be bothered responding to stupidity. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but being blunt can be avoided as this is the internet.

The individual loses a great deal of freedom to direct his or her own life. He becomes a beggar competing for state handouts as the rewards he once received for his labour are no longer his to control. That prerogative and the prerogatives of private ownership in general are usurped by the state.

Instead of developing and promoting their skills to get more pay, individuals now brandish their needs to get more rations. That, or be chosen to become part of the state machinery itself and enjoy the perks and privileges to the benefit of themselves, their family and friends, and the ever increasing number of poor saps who have little choice but to suck up to their overlords to get themselves out of the poverty trap even if it entails getting their neighbours into one. The political class profits all the while demonizing the profit motive. It demonizes selfishness all the while its state officials run their constituencies like a fiefdom, living like lords and treating their constituents like serfs. This is equality under Socialism in practice.

I can’t work out if you are writing a story or simply waning for attention. It took you 700 words to respond to a few paragraphs?

Did you really have to use metaphors, references to religion, cursing and an abundance of unnecessary references to make up for a lack of argument? ‘Christian version’, ‘fantastical as an alien’, demonizing the profit motive’…. Whats next? ‘vicious as a dog?’ ‘sly as a fox’? Please spare me and get to the point. Because after reading your little mini essay, I come to the conclusion that you don’t have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

In response to this first blockquote, let me give you two points of advice.

1.) Read more about socialism and its various forms
2.) Using a singular outdated form of socialism that is not used in contemporary China is rather misleading but I suppose you meant it to be. *Rolls eyes
3.) Not that I need to write anymore, but since you wrote a paragraph I’ll be generous and point out that China’s adoption of socialism involves nationalization of only key national industries in a mixed economy while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprises.
4.) Say what about poor saps, overlords, serfs and beggars asking for rations? Sorry, I can’t help but mock such a failed attempt to sound smart. You were asking for it.

No, you poor dumb animal. It is precisely because of the political system that these “mistakes” most often occur and when they do occur, result in the most widespread hardship. Hand over the unimaginably intricate network of interdependent relationships that make up a functioning economy and its price system to ivory tower socialist pencil-dicks and they will with their sledge hammer economics f*ck life up for millions of people.

1. Poor dumb animal? Hahahahaha
2. Now ignoring the rant about pencil dicks, ivory towers and sledge hammer economics, let’s get to the substance of your argument. Which is…….. nothing.
3. You basically said that socialism is a government system that leads to mistakes happening. But any and every government has made mistakes. So what is your point? Wait, you don’t have one. Put simply mistakes are not indicative of a political systems failure. Had Mao been democratically elected and subsequently fired after the great leap forward, this would not have made any difference to the outcome of his failed reform, it would not correlate to your theory that mistakes are directly a result of the socialist/democratic system. You basically posed an logical fallacy with no merit and it took you another few hundred words.

Irrelevant. In an open society the incentive for representatives to refrain from harming their constituents is that those same constituents can send their representatives packing following election day. The political factions may or may not be similar in an open society, but the serfs under a socialist dictatorship see only a thuggish Communism behemoth they are powerless to change and the destructive effects of which they, for the most part, are powerless to escape.

1. Thuggish, behemoth, powerless to escape? Hahahaha.. I laugh at every new paragraph, its like a story unfolding.

2. Political factions despite differences in minor policy, have almost homogeneous systems of governance in most major democratic countries.

3. Socialism does not promote serfdom. You are mixing this up with the thoracic system of the Dalai Lama or the Feudal ages of Britain.

“Flattering”… See, this is why people like you are such a godsend to those who fight for individual liberty and limited, fiscally responsible government. Irrespective of what merit there is to the belief that Jews control the state(??) media, the government, and banking institutions, it’s the proverbial tingle-up-the-leg you get thinking about it that helps expose the nature of Socialism in all its power-lusting madness. Thanks for that.

*This is the most confusing paragraph yet

1. I am a godsend to those who fight individual liberty?????? What???

2. Fiscally responsible government?????? You mean like the United States and their encouragement of trade protectionism, debt, housing market crashes, depressions and the GFC?

3. Tingle up the leg, power-lusting madness. Do you stay up at night thinking of this stuff? You’d do much better if you stuck to the topic and give an actual concise educated response.

There is no unity of voice in China and you’re a pretentious pip-squeak even to suppose yours could ever be a fair representation of it should, by some astounding coincidence, 1.3 billion people find themselves agreeing with a particular political philosophy.

Please learn to construct more concise sentences. You run around in circles trying to get a simple message across. I am the Voice of China because most Chinese think as I do, not the whole 1.3 billion people but the people you see supporting on the internet, and in particular the new generation of Chinese.

> Had Mao been democratically elected and subsequently fired
> after the great leap forward, this would not have made any
> difference to the outcome of his failed reform,

You mean, with a straight face, that the next elected leader for a 5 years term (for instance) would have probably also launched the Cultural revolution and set back the country development by another 10 years (or 20 years counting the aftermath)?

In trying too hard to save face on all fronts, you are making a clown of yourself. You should focus on what is defensible to have 2 cents of intellectual credibility.

Uh? Please sit back and re-read that sentence you so elegantly copied and pasted.

Since English isn’t your forte, let me help simplify this for you. Ready?

1. Your whole argument is based around equating a political system on singular decisions of an individual sitting at the apex of that system – this is for the last time, a logical fallacy.

2. Since your ability to comprehend basic sentences is so poor, let me clarify this even further by giving you a live example. Does the US involvement in the Vietnam war indicate the failure of democracy as a political system? No – it does not.

3. Now re-read the sentence you embarrassingly attached and try and co-link it to the example I listed clearly for you at point 2. Understand that had Mao been the leader under a different regime, he would have likely implemented the same policy with the same outcome.

In trying too hard to save face on all fronts, you are making a clown of yourself. You should focus on what is defensible to have 2 cents of intellectual credibility.

I think you should read what is written before ranting on about an imaginary point that never existed. The only ‘Clown’ here is yourself. I didn’t know that there was a distinction between credibility and intellectual credibility. But there you go. I wonder how you’ll try and get out of this one.

could it be that, i think most ppl would agree that people from HK or TW indeed are a bit different from mainlanders in terms of values, if any reason why any HK or TWese is relunctant to identify their own blood mum could be that they are just foster kids to another, who somehow taught them that money or a more convinient passport ( anyone just mentioned that ??) are the only things that matters in the world??…not kids’ fault… and by no means for the foster mom to be proud coz, chances are great that once blood mom gets any stronger down the track, all kids might just shift again and make the right decision and surprise surprise…

i’m not from the us of a.
and i’m glad i don’t have a PRC passport either. you know, i’m free to go wherever i want whenever i want and it’s usually very easy to get visas. what about all the papers and certifications you loser need to get a simple tourist visa for any contry apart from north korea and nepal.

and yes, i feel very proud of my fucked up country every time i have the right to choose the son of a bitch who’s going to represent me. but you can’t understand what it means

With a name like Sammy, I can only imagine your place of origin to be France, home of tightasses and assholes just like Sarkozy.

Yeah, having a PRC passport is a hassle. Papers, certifications and guarantees. But at the end of the day, it’s the individual and not the nationality that defines success. What am I? I’m just a living example of why people like you work under my shoe. See attention to detail is second nature to me. Why is it that you fail to construct proper paragraphs, capitalize when necessary? I’ll tell you why, its because your English sucks not because this is a comments section of an insignificant blog post.

It’s great you feel like you have a choice to who you vote for. Too bad, whoever you vote for, your country is going down. Sure you’re not from the U.S. of A, so does that mean you’re from one of the failing colonies in Europe? Doesn’t do your argument much good either way does it?

Mocking you idiots is easy, requires no brain power and is relatively entertaining. All I need is to look for a racially inciting article, and low and behold, we have a racist jackass making a fool of himself.

Thing that makes it worthwhile is because most of you idiots that bother writing racist comments are not smart enough to construct a proper rebuttal. Which makes writing these comments almost like an exercise of intellectual masturbation. Enjoyable but probably a waste of time.

You talk sh*t! Everyone has a “boss”, so therefore everyone is working under someone else’s shoe.

Just goes to show the type of people PRC produces – people who THINK they are better than others, just because now they having an OVERDUE economy growth… LOL. What took you so long? Look at Taiwan and Korea, even they’ve been quicker than China! LOL. Mainlanders are just a joke!

Good luck with your PRC passport! Enjoy your time filling out the paperworks! Make sure customs, doesn’t give you the raised eyebrows when you hand over your PRC passport! LOL!!!

I’m cocky because I have individual merit and success. I don’t attribute it to the success of my country, although that is also quite worthy of praise.

Taiwan is part of China and Korea is a shit hole as far as “RAW GDP” is concerned. The only reason their GDP per Capita is high is because the inbred race is limited to the size of Shanghai and Beijing added together with surnames limited to Kim and Lee.

Paperworks are handled by my secretary. It’s usually a get up and go situation for me. Oh, I remember you, you’re the guy from Taipei who I owned last conversation. How do I know? Because you used the same sentence, implying that you know that I know you are talking about Taiwan. Pathetic.

Oh and uh btw, that comment wasn’t directed at you Sammy boy, it was to Gary.. Not to say that you’re unimportant.. But not implying that you are important. Argh hell, you’re not important. There I said it 🙂

“The story of a man executed by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime never revealed either to him or the reader”.

Yes, that seems an adequate descrption of our human condition at this stage. I would say from an economical point of view, any sudden death may be very effective. It may be the Chinese way, still it is not sustainable. These are signs of decay.

I doubt a public judicial procedure would do. Once the trial goes public, the trial is over even the official is innocent. The mass think low-to-middle ranking officials are just dispensable and they all have the tendency to degrade in time. If there’s a national vote on if the career path of government officials should be three years of duty succeeded by a life long imprisonment, 99% Chinese would vote ‘yes’ including some officials themselves – public pressure is unbearable sometimes.

Just wish you wouldn’t reincarnate to a Chinese official in your next life. The ‘caste’ system prevailed for thousands of years and there’s no hope for it to be changed in near future. Actually committing suicide is already pretty humane. In Ming dynasty, it’s a common practice to skin officials alive and then stuff the ‘package’ with dry straws.

This is weird. I always assumed that those who had committed suicide weren’t supposed to speak. Nor wink ( e.g. to close and open the eyelid of one eye deliberately, as to convey a message, signal, or suggestion).

Well there is no reply button in the original thread so i landed here.

> I’m guessing English is not your native language either?

Isn’t that exactly what i wrote in my previous post? Obviously native readers did not need me to tell them, and i spelled it out just for your own benefit.

And unlike you i do not fantasize about my english level: i was closer to the bottom of the class than the top.

> The answer is it must be approved by members of the State Council
> amongst consideration by the existing judiciary.

Actually, my understanding is that judges are appointed in court by the *same-level* People’s congress or assembly in general. So provincial judges are appointed by the provincial assembly which seems a little bit too cosy.

So for instance, to be precise, and without opening the pandora box, why not make the judges civil servants with a statutory protection from the executive and have professsional misconduct handled by their peers? And move them around the country every few years to reset the guanxi. That may not solve the high level courts independence but that will certainly help with the lower level (municipal and provincial) courts independence.

> Are you trying to again ‘generally’ propose that the judiciary is not independent

Not ‘generally’: i was going after the provincial/municipal level where the bulk of the corruption is. Not that the argument is weaker at every levelm but it would be too tiresome, especially given that i have to spell out a lot of details for you to follow.

> This is a foolish argument because the judiciary in the United States …

It would be somewhat true if i was trying to point the US as an example. Yes i know the fed. judges are appointed by the executive there. And i said ‘almost true’, because, at least in some states, the lower courts’ judges are elected by the populace. So even within your US centric view, your counter argument lacked teeth.

> Well no, this is a logical fallacy.

Your economic analogy is a wet fire cracker too (not as embarrassing as the girlfriend-TV parable though). Presenting an invalid argument about economics to try to invalidate a statement about judicial systems falls in the run-of-mill hollow rethoric.

So, since you do not like general statements, why dont you explain me why the level of cosiness between officials, judges and business interest has no relevance to the fairness of the provincial judicial system in China? And then why an ineffective judicial system has not relevance to the widespread abuse and corruption?

And not to take your thunder away, spare me the recent Chongqing counter example. Plus it may backfire on you.

> The judiciary interprets and applies the law.

That’s the theory and the laws of China are actually quite good on paper (see regulations on workers’ protection for instance), leaving aside of course the carte blanche laws about disturbing social order or stability/security of the state. Better than some western countries in some aspects.

The problem is that their application is highly inaccurate and spotty to say the least. And any joker like you and me who knows two bits about China knows it. At least every Chinese i talked to knows it.

> The legislature is not a political body

You don’t really mean that as a general statement of any government, right? You just mean the chinese legislature is a rubber stamp assembly. Yes i have to agree with you on that one.

> So, how did they measure this index? Using a ruler?

I was waiting that one: just go and read the methodologies of these rankings. Of course it is not gospel but that gives some rough bearings more relevant than your opinion or mine. You were asking for more than opinions, i believe.

> Does that mean if 80% of Americans believed communism was bad or if 90% of
> the media used the same words ‘meaningful autonomy’ in every article of the

Again try not to be so US focused: it makes you look like a community college educated rural mid-westerner with a manichean world view. Read european or middle eastern press for a bit more diversity. And if you think the world outside China and the US is gullible enough to believe the ‘China Negative News’ channel is a reliable source of information, you are mistaking (and they did not wait the coverage of the pre-olympic fiasco to reach that conclusion). But of course all countries have some level of media manipulations and we all know that.

The real question is to know how bad it is in an harmonious/ized China compared, for instance, with a country where a magazine cover showed its president picture with the title “the thug of the republic”.

In the same league of media control? Don’t think so pal. And don’t make a fool of yourself arguing about that one. But i do see progress in China, mostly thanks to the subversive western invention we use for our friendly fireside chat.

> I’m sure you did do it as a literary technique to falsely objectify your opinion.

Why finding flaws in the current regime of China is incompatible with an appreciation for the country’s history and culture? I often criticize my own country government or leaders without any hatred for my country history, culture or people. Please don’t let your emotions make you so narrow minded: that reflects poorly on your stature by making you look immature.

> The so called little emperor syndrome applies mostly to Koreans

Ho really? i did not realize they had a single child policy there. Seriously, have you been to China recently? Yes i know it is irrelevant to the original subject matter but i cannot resist it.

Hu Jia? Irrelevant too? You seem to have forgotten him in your painfully constructed reply.

And unlike you i do not fantasize about my english level: i was closer to the bottom of the class than the top.

Well that was obvious, I just wanted to make sure.

Actually, my understanding is that judges are appointed in court by the *same-level* People’s congress or assembly in general. So provincial judges are appointed by the provincial assembly which seems a little bit too cosy.

Why? Because wikipedia told you so? The presidents of courts nominates the judges for appointment along with the standing committee of the People’s congress. The final decision lies with state council and the existing judiciary. No more free legal lessons.

Your economic analogy is a wet fire cracker too (not as embarrassing as the girlfriend-TV parable though). Presenting an invalid argument about economics to try to invalidate a statement about judicial systems falls in the run-of-mill hollow rethoric.

No, its completely relevant. In fact is a perfect analogy of how I’ve repeatedly had to explain to you the intricacies of the legal system just to dispel your interpretation based on common sense. Are you just willfully closing your eyes to this?

It would be somewhat true if i was trying to point the US as an example. Yes i know the fed. judges are appointed by the executive there. And i said ‘almost true’, because, at least in some states, the lower courts’ judges are elected by the populace. So even within your US centric view, your counter argument lacked teeth.

No this is incorrect again. In no case are lower court judges appointed by the populace. Try again.

The problem is that their application is highly inaccurate and spotty to say the least. And any joker like you and me who knows two bits about China knows it. At least every Chinese i talked to knows it.

This whole discussion has been about socialism on paper. You are now admitting its superiority over democracy given correct enforcement procedures. Don’t answer that, please. I don’t want to read around in circles, a convoluted response that indirectly answers a different question.

I was waiting that one: just go and read the methodologies of these rankings. Of course it is not gospel but that gives some rough bearings more relevant than your opinion or mine. You were asking for more than opinions, i believe.

Don’t quite see the point of wasting another ten minutes of my time reading a google corruption index. Googles role in aiding in the United States Federal Government is a different issue that I will not cover because it is extensively done in online videos and it would only detract more from this discussion which is over at this stage. Point in place, is that I might consider this more than just a joke if you tell me how they measure the corruption index. I’m interested but not bored enough to waste my time like this.

Again try not to be so US focused: it makes you look like a community college educated rural mid-westerner with a manichean world view. Read european or middle eastern press for a bit more diversity.

Sorry, not interested in European news to be honest. My US focus is simply because they hold a model Democratic model that has been followed extensively with some modifications by many other countries. I don’t have a remote clue of what the system in Norway is like and as a result, I can’t focus on your fabled European democracies unfortunately.

In the same league of media control? Don’t think so pal. And don’t make a fool of yourself arguing about that one.

The United States Media control is probably worse considering that it’s less transparent. The fact that it is privatized by a few influential investors with links in all arms of government actually harms the society more as there is no incentive for good governance. Sorry to not fall for your little trap.

I often criticize my own country government or leaders without any hatred for my country history, culture or people. Please don’t let your emotions make you so narrow minded: that reflects poorly on your stature by making you look immature.

And here we are again? The same ‘I’d do the same if it was my country’ and ‘I’m just being objective’ play on words. It’s funny how you call me narrow minded. Up to this post, I don’t suppose you’ve really contributed one working statement; been consistently incoherent and incorrect with your interpretation of the judicature and perhaps I could give you a point about the ‘corruption index’, no… actually I can’t really.

Ho really? i did not realize they had a single child policy there.

No but it’s inbuilt into Korean culture 🙂

Hu Jia? Irrelevant too? You seem to have forgotten him in your painfully constructed reply.

As long as this doesn’t lead to an extended useless argument, I’ll give it a response. Which is as far as most Chinese people are concerned. We don’t give a shit. The guy was trying to protest for democracy in a communist country. He was asking for it. We don’t need a democratic movement in China, so in a sense, he was simply an annoying fly looking to get hit.

Hmm let me guess: shanghainesse being the first? or worst: the second one?

> Why? Because wikipedia told you so?

No: because Chineses told me so as far as how things work in practice. Because even the central government knows it is a problem: it actually tried to alleviate it with the 1999 reforms in a 5 year plan which attempted but somewhat failed to reduce the mingling of the Adjudication commitees to increase the judge independence.

> In no case are lower court judges appointed by the populace. Try again.

I try again because the more you talk, the more incompetent you appear to be: search “California Superior Court judicial elections”. At first i thought you had some first hand experience with the US (i dont mean the standard chinese 6 days tour) since you seem so obsessed with them, but now i seriously doubt it.

> You are now admitting its superiority over democracy given correct
> enforcement procedures

I thought you were more than a goofy debater but once again you did not read properly: i said superior in *some* areas.

Now there is no need to claim victory for this one as i give it to you on a platter: i think the swedish socialism is superior to many other western democracies in many aspects (notice i used ‘many’ and not ‘some’), both on paper and in practice. But, mind you, it is a democratic socialism and not a backward and abusive dictatorship of a narrow political class.

> wasting another ten minutes of my time reading a google corruption index

Again you did not read me and as a result you are wasting your time on a totally irrelevant answer. Or do you just have reading difficulties with english?

Now try to listen and comprehend: I did not tell you about a google corruption index. I told you to use Google (or Baidu if you cannot access google from your backwater internet) to search for ‘corruption index’ and as a result you will find several websites of organizations who are producing these indexes. Then you can read details on these websites on the results and methodologies.

Now i do not know why you even argue about that one on technicalities. Your central government (which in my eyes is the least corrupted in comparaison with provincial and municipal ones) knows very well that the wide spread corruption and abuses is the biggest threat to its legitimacy and survival. And it is actually making some efforts to reduce it: the problem is that it has to work with a system that has these flaws built in. Thus the limited success, and more crucially the perception of limited success among the masses.

> Sorry, not interested in European news to be honest

Again you failed to understand. I was suggesting you to read european media not to get european news, but to get a more diversified media coverage of world events instead of agonizing about the inadequacies of CNN coverages and complaining about media control in the US.

Plus i also felt that you are a yound man who need to broaden his intellectual horizons so that you do not turn into a bitter, arrogant, racist little fascist. Or you tell me it is too late?

> Sorry to not fall for your little trap.

Once more you completely missed the point: the other country i was talking about was not the US and i was just trying to broaden your perception of what freedom of press means in some countries.

> ‘I’d do the same if it was my country’

That’s right. Are you dishonnest for the sake of debating or are you so ignorant about the world outside China and how people think about politics?

> The guy was trying to protest for democracy in a communist country.
> He was asking for it.

Well if you read the letter that got him in jail, he was also try to defend farmers who lost their land, blood transfusion victims, etc. It reflected a real concern for his fellow countrymen, things that you seem to completely lack.

May be after all, you are a single child little emperor, too proud of a few good grades to show compassion for his own countrymen?

But the main issue is that you think it is perfectly ok to jail someone for their opinions. And that’s why most of the developped world will look at your government as unsecure, illegetimate, backward and borderline medieval, no matter how many western-designed (Switzerland in that case) bird nests have been built.

At first i actually fell for it: i thought you were someone with a mind of substance but you are actually just a blindsided hollow debater lacking depth, breadth and open mindness. All in all a disapointing combination.

But lucky me, i have met enough intellectually honest and culturally broader Chineses to know how unrepresentative you are of your people. Ok leaving Shanghainese aside may be 😉

Isn’t that exactly what i wrote in my previous post? Obviously native readers did not need me to tell them, and i spelled it out just for your own benefit.

*Grins*… Well, my English is better than the great majority of native speakers. Since you left it slightly ambiguous I actually thought you meant that my English was simply better per se.

No: because Chineses told me so as far as how things work in practice. Because even the central government knows it is a problem: it actually tried to alleviate it with the 1999 reforms in a 5 year plan which attempted but somewhat failed to reduce the mingling of the Adjudication commitees to increase the judge independence.

Oh, so now you are an expert at the Chinese legal system because of the fireside chat you had with your Chinese friend?

Three comments ago you weren’t even specific enough to detail what you meant by an independent legal system.

You didn’t know what the term ‘internal control was’, suggested that external monitoring be set up against the judiciary, then you mixed up the legislature’s role with the judiciary.

Next, you failed to use the correct terminology and mixed up election with nomination, then you suggested moving around judges periodically.

Now you are telling me about adjudication committees to increasing judge independence? Please enlighten me, what might these committees be adjudicating? How periodically and for what purpose? Is there an equivalent monitoring system in your ideal democratic legal system? By the way, it’s a rhetorical question, you don’t have to answer it.

I try again because the more you talk, the more incompetent you appear to be: search “California Superior Court judicial elections”. At first i thought you had some first hand experience with the US (i dont mean the standard chinese 6 days tour) since you seem so obsessed with them, but now i seriously doubt it.

That was a well picked up point. I did a search and you are right. So judges are elected by the electorate in that district. Thanks for enlightening me on this topic. Although I’m sure you can understand how “ridiculous” it is that somehow people with no knowledge of the law have to vote for the judiciary and how judges have to make decisions and to appeal to the general public. This is counter-intuitive and a joke. Congratulations, this is your first working statement that is correct.

I thought you were more than a goofy debater but once again you did not read properly: i said superior in *some* areas.

No, I quote “democracy is a terrible form of government but we have not find a better one so far.” Wasn’t this your authority for the superiority of democracy? I don’t see a qualification here.

Now there is no need to claim victory for this one as i give it to you on a platter: i think the swedish socialism is superior to many other western democracies in many aspects (notice i used ‘many’ and not ‘some’), both on paper and in practice. But, mind you, it is a democratic socialism and not a backward and abusive dictatorship of a narrow political class.

Here we are again, trying to soften the fall of your previous failure and drawing attention elsewhere. It’s you and me buddy, and so I’m sure you can drop the class act as it won’t get you anywhere.

as a result you will find several websites of organizations who are producing these indexes. Then you can read details on these websites on the results and methodologies.

As I see it, you are either too lazy or to apprehensive of quoting your source aside from saying ‘google it’ that I do not see the point in even doing this search. If you bother to use something for authority, try to add a bit more weight to it. As I said, I’m going to take it as a joke unless you tell me here, unless it is too ridiculous to write on paper, how you can possibly come up with a corruption index.

Corruption and abuse is rampant in most political systems. In fact, any such index is unlikely to account something as vague as ‘corruption’ which is really immeasurable unless a set of accurate facts can be presented. And when you are dealing with corruption, you better have clear access to exact figures and have perfect transparency in dealing with the particular government, which you are most likely not going to have most likely for security reasons.

Plus i also felt that you are a yound man who need to broaden his intellectual horizons so that you do not turn into a bitter, arrogant, racist little fascist. Or you tell me it is too late?

I thinks this comment is relatively bewildering. You think I’m a bitter, arrogant, racist fascist? This seems to be a rather strange attack. Sure, I have a rather clear view of the law and its application both in China and abroad but I hold no resentment to the average citizen. By most means, I don’t give a shit, because most of these decisions prima facie, are yet affect me directly. In real life, I usually avoid any type of these discussions as it is not advantageous when building relations with people of other countries. My arrogance extends to having a good laugh on Chinahush when some imbecile uses big words without knowing what they mean and bash China or when a Korean starts incoherently bashing China due to inferiority complex.

Once more you completely missed the point: the other country i was talking about was not the US and i was just trying to broaden your perception of what freedom of press means in some countries.

The other country you were responding to was the United States. So no, I did not miss the point. I don’t know whether you are now being intellectually dishonest by now talking about ‘other countries’ but given your previous responses, that there probably isn’t a point in giving you the benefit of the doubt.

That’s right. Are you dishonnest for the sake of debating or are you so ignorant about the world outside China and how people think about politics?

What I’m saying is that you are writing statements that appear to objectify your argument which is completely bias up to the point you say its not. It is a play on words and you continue to do it as if it actually makes you sound objective. Now you are questioning me for the same thing. That is pathetic.

Well if you read the letter that got him in jail, he was also try to defend farmers who lost their land, blood transfusion victims, etc. It reflected a real concern for his fellow countrymen, things that you seem to completely lack.

I haven’t read the letter; I haven’t followed the press but a quick search stated he wrote a few political papers and gave interviews in addition to this ‘letter’. But if he was put on trial, then the correct application of law was adhered to. Whether the legislature was unfairly applied is uncertain, whether the legislation needs to be amended is questionable. Things are hardly what they are on the surface.

But the main issue is that you think it is perfectly ok to jail someone for their opinions.

No, I don’t condone jailing people for their opinions. Unless of course those opinions include inciting subversion of state power and the socialist system.

Whether you choose to believe that such a crime should not be sentenceable, you would also have no substantive argument that could add weight to your opinion without doing thorough research, which I don’t intend to do.

I don’t suppose to talk about Hu Jia extensively because quite frankly I know very little about this incident. From a layman’s point of view, ignoring the inadequacies of the law which he knew existed, the idea that someone would be stupid enough to ignore the possible consequences of his actions makes this sentence well deserved. He failed to make a realist decision. It’s unfortunate if it was for merely ‘constituting an opinion’ but I’m sure they were more than that.

And that’s why most of the developped world will look at your government as unsecure, illegetimate, backward and borderline medieval, no matter how many western-designed (Switzerland in that case) bird nests have been built.

On the contrary I argue that my government is a secure, legitimate and contemporary socialist system that is model government for most Democratic countries to admire. That most Western countries out of political interest are trying to negatively publicize China in order to suppress its development. That most Western Countries are apprehensive of China’s development and the inability to control or manipulate its citizens as they have under governments that are only prima facie elected by the people but actually arranged by the rich aristocrats which have defacto control of the country and its wealth.

At first i actually fell for it: i thought you were someone with a mind of substance but you are actually just a blindsided hollow debater lacking depth, breadth and open mindness. All in all a disapointing combination. </blockquote.

That's exactly what I said about you, except I had substance to back this up. You did however prove to me that the judiciary can actually be elected in California. But that's 1/20. Whatever happened to your other arguments? You know, the important ones?

In fact, this discussion ended when you openly admitted that you only meant to point out a few decisions that have been made under a political systems, believing it to indicate the failure of that system. That you couldn't really fault the system merely by talking about the judiciary. So in effect, you started attacking strawman, concluding without any correlated evidence, that the Chinese Communist Party runs an inefficient and medieval government. Simply because of a corruption index which you told me to search on google and refuse to cite, and that California elects its judges.

But lucky me, i have met enough intellectually honest and culturally broader Chineses to know how unrepresentative you are of your people. Ok leaving Shanghainese aside may be

If you met me in real life, we would be having a different discussion as I would contemplate whether you are of any practical use to determine whether I could afford to offend you. I am interested as to what makes people from Shanghai different, do I remind you of a ‘Shanghainese’ person you have talked to previously in a different site? 😉

The truth is, what truly makes me the Voice of China is that I am the real inner reasoning that drives most contemporary Chinese minds negative the reason to restrain from presenting one’s true self. That’s why I don’t hesitate to say that while most people would try and objectify an interpretation of ‘Hu Jia’s arrest’, they aren’t really thinking that in their head. What they probably think is ‘the guy is an idiot with too much time on his hands. He is like a hippy, worrying about the environment and democratic reform. He should probably get his own life together so that he can earn a decent living, and buy a house or something of practical use’. The reason is that deep inside, Chinese people are realists and that explains the rejection of Christianity, the adoption of materialism and the ability to supersede in time, the United States, Britain and most of Europe.

And you learn very little from me because you are more worried about saving your face than maintaining your intellectual integrity.

A more productive exercise for both of us may be to go and read the enlightening speech of Premier Wen Jiabao in Shenzhen last august. And this is not an ironic statement at all, as you know if you read the speech.

These baseless assertions are getting tiring. Is this notion of ‘saving face’ only applicable to me because I’m Chinese and this tends to be an overused cliche in political speeches?

You’ve failed to understand the basic principles of separation of power, internal control or the role of the judiciary which formed the basis of your argument. On numerous occasions, you have contradicted yourself regarding your perception of democracy. You’ve brought up authority of a corruption index, asking me to ‘google it’. You’ve played on logical fallacies all day long, even admitting that:

iscussing corruption and an independant judicial system alone is also insufficient and sterile but tiresome. One has to open the whole pandora box from freedom of expression to elections.

You’ve used unnecessary examples regarding natural disasters and past decisions made under a political leader as indicative of failure of the entire political system – a logical fallacy that makes very little sense. And yet at the end somewhere, you continue to soften my perception of your bias by saying ‘you would do the same if it was your country’.

Wait there’s more. You’ve also tried logical fallacies such as that ‘uniformity in belief is a sign of lack of freedom’ and that judges should be rotated to maintain independence and even being unable to comprehend a basic sentence in a previous post.

Yes, I’m glad that you have decided to resign from unnecessary trolling to avoid ‘losing face’. I hope that I educated you arms of government. If not, read some books about it. Take care.

I have read it, and what exactly is it that I should be expecting to see aside from the obvious statements about increased transparency and accountability of government my improving the current socialist system of government?

Oh wait, you probably don’t know anything about the rule of law either. Not surprising.At this stage you’ve been utterly humiliated.

Here is the exercise of the day, especially for you, goofball. Two questions to be answered in that order (minus 10 credits if not done in order).

1) Is stating “The people’s wishes for and needs for democracy and freedom are irresistible” fall in the category you mentioned before of “inciting subversion of state power” ? 5 credits

2) Search that exact sentence “The people’s wishes for and needs for democracy and freedom are irresistible” in recent news or even on the whole web (sorry but you have to use google: baidu wont work) and find out who is the speaker. You are allowed to use copy and paste for performing the search. Report the name but save us the we-already-guess explanations. 10 credits

After you can return to your important occupations, silently if possible.

Well, I hope this isn’t another one of your below the belt shots that you’re so fond of. Now since I established that I won’t be giving any more free educational lessons, you’ll have to earn this one.

1.) In 3000 words +/- 10% with the application of the normal rules of academic misconduct: describe what is meant by the term ‘democracy with Chinese characteristics’ and its application in China’s current political system. Marks will be allocated for citations with proper references. Note this does not include a google search or wikipedia or youtube.

2.) Next describe whether the current regime of socialism is compatible with freedom of speech. Please also describe the stages of development in the socialist system and the priority that democracy holds in the evolution of Chinese socialism.

3.) Please describe and translate subversion of power including the relevant legislation and section number. Describe the elements of the offense and find the comparable crime in US Federal legislation.

4.) Please translate Wen Jia Bao’s speech and indicate where he uses the word ‘democracy’ in Chinese using Han characters. Please past the authority so I may assess the validity of the statement.

Remember that I will be expecting use of journal articles, primary sources of legislation and parliamentary speeches, hansard.Google is not good authority.

Once you have completed your task SATISFACTORILY (which you seem to have a problem with), I will reward you with your answers. Alternatively, you may find your answers before writing an answer and thus you may either ask for my forgiveness for wasting my time or refrain from writing posts on this site due to humiliation. Or you may consequently post under a different ID and start trolling, hoping that I don’t recognize your poor control of the English language.

“After you can return to your important occupations, silently if possible”

But no, you cannot control your talking savant syndrom, but as i already told you before, you are vacuous and i won’t take the time to read your postings. But i am happy to see that you read mine faithfully because it shows a will to continue to learn new things from me as you have acknowledged several times already.

And that’s why, unlike you, i have not bragged yet about the following:
– my IQ
– my performance and precise ranking in school
– my salary
– my performance with multiple girls
– my very important and promising job
– my extensive knowledge of law and politics in China and abroad
– my contempt for Korean people, Taiwanese people, Jewish people and probably a lot more i missed
– my superiority to pretty much everyone i come across
– my excellent english skills
– my merit in general

And, here is the kicker, I am just talking about some of your postings on this single effing page. What more are we going to have to bear with? The size of your weenie?

So make yourself a favor: shut up so that you stop growing that big red ball in the middle of your self-satisfied face, an attribute which would reduce your already meager employment prospects to the sole circus industry.

Now do your favor and try and absorb the fact that I’m not here to be modest and I won’t refrain from listening my personal qualities.

Can I help that I’m an alpha male superior to most of the trolls on this site? Yes, probably but I choose not to because its irrelevant whether I crush your petty egos. Some of these points are simply observations; others are national views often obscured by the need to be ‘polite’.

In real life, if I had a need for you, I would refrain from making such honest comments. I post online to entertain myself. I have no need to show you courtesy or to be modest. And let me tell you, its bloody entertaining to demolish all your arguments and make a complete fool out of you. And the more hopeful you are of winning, the more funny it is when I crush those hopes.

A symptom of the corrupt communist system, unfortunately. Despite a somewhat well-written article, the stilted English makes it a difficult read to get through. It IS rather interesting to see something like this written from a Chinese point of view.

It all comes down to poverty, unfortunately. For so many Chinese, like many other Asians, having money is a relatively new thing for them. Hence the taste in expensive Western designer brands, luxury cars, etc. What we can see is that the poor far outnumber the wealthy in every single case (except for perhaps Japan) and that in many cases, China especially, corruption is rampant. These guys know the ride isn’t going to last forever, so take the money and run.

Shame on them for trying to emulate a Western political system, perhaps? Granted, Japan has been the most successful in doing so, but look at the society they’ve created. Mindless, stressed, sexual deviants. Weird stuff. That, and the Koreans are killing themselves in droves. Singaporeans are uptight, pseudo-intellectuals, and the Taiwanese are just brighter Chinese than those on the mainland. North Korea need not be mentioned – though it does add a bit of fun to the mix as China continues to support the most horrific totalitarian dictatorship the world has ever known (no exaggeration here).

If you look at a country like China on paper, especially how the central government wants things to run, it seems pretty amazing. Read a bit on their labor law and you’ll see what I’m getting at here. On paper, the workers are protected better than even in the United States, where it’s a felony to strike if you’re a federal worker. BUT, the reality is far different as anyone knows who’s lived here for even a short amount of time.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with having the one-party system, and in many ways for China’s situation it’s quite effective. What would China be like otherwise? It would be madness. Then again, I’m a firm believer in the benevolent dictatorship – and like a communist society, it’s not likely that we’re ever going to have one, so democracy will have to make due for now.

” the taste in expensive Western designer brands, luxury cars ” although i have no fantasies about those big namebrands, its also pathetic in a way that not many westerners are able to support their own brands, although having money being not a new thing to them…somehow majority still can’t escape the race of paying a big mortgage n multiple credit cards…

“Mindless, stressed, sexual deviants.” to conclude Japan with 3 words like this would not be fair enough, when I was there I see Japanese also as most polite and intelligent, highly-disciplined, well-mannered, nost hard-working group of the people, possibly around the world, a bit rigid in thoughts as a common trait but does no harm. I see that society functioning much better than 1 that hard-working middle class being ripped off with 30-50% tax while those living-on-doles or financially leveraged enjoy full priviledge of reaping off all the intentionally left-open loopholes of the system…

Hm… ignoring the usual round of flaming – it’s pretty obvious why corrupt officials off themselves when they are exposed. When you think of prisoner hierarchy systems in human history – usually corrupt officials are the lowest form of life in general population, maybe above child molsters. Given the rep of P.R. Chinese prisons, death by one’s own hand would seem to be a better alternative.

Taking the easy way out is just disgraceful. The article hits it on the nail towards the end. The judiciary needs to be independent and have its officials selected based on academic and legal merits rather than political patronage and guanxi.

Transparency and accountability and consistency cannot be separated and are intertwined. Checks and balances are not up holding up to what the public demands. The punishments for some official corruption is death so I don’t see how increasing the penalty will solve the problem.